U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
DECEMBER 2013 • VOLUME 2 / NUMBER 24
G L O B A L
E C O N O M Y
Forty Years of the BLS Export and Import Price
Indexes: trends and competition
U
Authors: William Alterman, Edwin Bennion, and Sharon Royales
.S. competitiveness is measured in many different
ways. However, two sets of measures that historically
have been of interest in helping to assess the strength
of the economy are the price trends of U.S. exports and of U.S.
imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, the Bureau) first
began publication of a limited set of export price indexes in 1971,
followed 2 years later by a set of import price indexes. The Bureau
developed these series in response to two key concerns, one
statistical and the other economic. The statistical issue was over
the validity of the import and export unit value indexes published
by the Census Bureau.1 The economic question had to do with the
nation’s ability to compete in the increasingly global economy.
The publication of detailed export and import price indexes
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 1
Related articles
More BLS articles and information related to
import and export price changes are available
online at the following links:
yy “The Price Competitiveness of U.S. Exports,”
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/theprice-competitiveness-of-us-exportsquarterly-price-highlights-pdf.pdf.
yy The BLS International Price Program homepage,
Import/Export Price Indexes.
www.bls.gov
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
G L O B A L
E C O N O M Y
Chart 1
U.S. trade balance and price trends, 1985–2012
Index (1985 = 100)
Millions of dollars
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
-600,000
-500,000
-400,000
-300,000
-200,000
-100,000
0
1985
1988
Trade balance
1991
1994
1997
2000
Imports excluding petroleum
2003
2006
PPI excluding fuels
2009
2012
Real exchange rate
Sources:Price
Price indexes
indexes from
from U.S.
U.S. Bureau
Bureau of
of Labor
Labor Statistics;
Sources:
Statistics; trade
trade balance
balance from
from U.S.
U.S. Census
CensusBureau;
Bureau; real
realexchange
exchangerates
ratesfrom
fromFederal
FederalReserve
Reserve
Bank
of
St.
Louis.
Bank of St. Louis.
helped address these concerns because those indexes were
true price indexes and because they provided a greater
level of detail than the analogous indexes previously
published by the Census Bureau. The number of published
series increased until the Bureau was able to publish the
first all-import price index in 1983, followed a year later by
the first all-export price index.2 Although the publication of
these series alleviated the need to rely upon the unit value
data—indeed, the Census Bureau discontinued publication
of its unit value indexes in 1989—concerns over U.S.
competitiveness have only grown over time.
So, what light can the U.S. import and export price indexes
shine on these trends? The BLS index for imports excluding
petroleum shows a rising trend from its inception in 1985
to the present day, as it tracks increases in trade from
abroad. (See chart 1.) However, when one compares the
import index with the Producer Price Index (PPI) excluding
fuels, one sees a more interesting picture. Paralleling
the weakening of the dollar, import prices rose during
the decade between 1985 and 1995, reflecting relatively
higher price trends than those of the comparable domestic
price series. Beginning in 1995, as the dollar appreciated
against foreign currencies, import prices began to trend
lower than the domestic series prices. As import prices
trended lower, the shift to imported manufactures
accelerated, with total manufactured imports rising 45
percent between 1996 and 2002. Note that the increase in
U.S. manufactured imports relative to domestic production
predates the appreciation of the dollar.
In 1970, just before the BLS import and export price
indexes were established, total U.S. trade was equivalent
to 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2012,
the proportion had increased to 30 percent. Perhaps more
significant was the increase in imported manufactured
goods, compared with domestic manufactures. In 1970, the
value of all U.S. imported manufactures was the equivalent
of 12 percent of the value of domestic production. By 2012,
the value of manufactured imports was nearly identical
to the value added by the domestic U.S. manufacturing
industry. Over the 1970–2012 period, employment in the
U.S. manufacturing sector fell by one-third.3
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 On the export side, however, the role of prices and
exchange rates may prove more instructive. Chart 2
shows the trend for U.S. exports of manufactured goods
since 1985. Included are two price indexes. The trend
for the value of manufacturing exports appears to rise
2
www.bls.gov
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
G L O B A L
E C O N O M Y
Chart 2
U.S. exports and export price trends, 1985–2012
Index (1985 = 100)
Millions of dollars
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1985
1988
1991
Manufacturing exports
1994
1997
2000
Foreign currency index
2003
2006
2009
2012
Exports excluding agriculture
Sources:Price
Price indexes
indexes from
from U.S.
U.S. Bureau
Bureau of
of Labor
Labor Statistics;
Sources:
Statistics; manufacturing
manufacturingexports
exportsfrom
fromU.S.
U.S.Census
CensusBureau;
Bureau;exchange
exchangerates
ratesfrom
fromFederal
FederalReserve
Reserve
Bank of St.
St. Louis.
Bank
most rapidly as export prices go up. This rapid rise can
be somewhat misleading, however, because the export
price index is denoted in dollar terms. When the index
is recalculated and looked at from the point of view of
currency of the average foreign buyer (the so-called
foreign currency index), the graph tells a different story.
As a result of a weakening dollar, between 1985 and 1996
the average price of U.S. exports, in foreign currency terms,
tended to moderate and the value of exports more than
doubled. However, between 1996 and 2002 the value of
manufacturing exports rose only 13 percent, coinciding
with a significant increase in the average foreign currency
price of U.S. exports due to the strengthening of the dollar.
continued to grow. Perhaps the key here is to differentiate
trade and exchange rate patterns by locality. As can be
seen in chart 3, import prices of manufactured goods from
industrialized nations to the United States rose as the dollar
declined from 2004 to 2008 (and earlier years, not shown). In
contrast, during this same time, the dollar moved very little
against the Chinese yuan, and correspondingly, prices for
imports from China barely moved.
Closing out the past 10 years, the overall trend of import
and export prices—and, indeed, of the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) and the PPI—was affected primarily by
several broad trends: first the spike in food and oil prices
in 2008 and then the sharp declines in these series that
paralleled the 2008–2009 recession. The value of U.S.
trade, both imports and exports, declined during this
period. From 2010 through 2012, however, the value of
trade rebounded and export and import prices moved
moderately higher.
A decade ago, the dollar began to depreciate. Between
2002 and 2008, the dollar depreciated nearly 30 percent
compared with the price of a market basket of major
currencies,4 and U.S. manufacturing exports increased
considerably, jumping nearly 80 percent during the same
timeframe. On the import side, however, the impact of
exchange rates, trade prices, and trade flows was not as
clear. Even as the dollar began to weaken and import
prices started to climb around 2002, in parallel with
domestic prices, the value of manufactured imports
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 Assessing the 40-year price trends of U.S. exports and
imports is enlightening. As the 2013 Economic Report
of the President states, “The Nation’s economic recovery
and long-run growth prospects depend in large part on
U.S. businesses being able to compete in an open, fair
3
www.bls.gov
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
G L O B A L
E C O N O M Y
Chart 3
Price indexes and exchange rates, January 2004–August 2013
Index (January 2004 = 100)
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
2004
2005
2006
Imports from industrialized countries
2007
2008
2009
Imports from China
2010
2011
Major currency exchange rate
2012
2013
Yuan exchange rate
Sources: Price indexes from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; exchange rates from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Sources: Price indexes from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; exchange rates from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
and growing world economy.”5 One critical ingredient
for data-driven decisionmaking is having high-quality,
reliable data.
Following a 5.4-percent drop during the second quarter,
petroleum prices advanced 5.2 percent for the 3 months
ended in September. Growing tensions between Syria
and the United States combined with political unrest in
Libya pushed import petroleum prices higher over the
3-month period.6 Prices for petroleum were up each month
in the third quarter, rising 2.4 percent, 1.9 percent, and 0.8
percent, respectively. The trade deficit for oil remains large
in dollar terms despite the United States importing less oil
in recent years.7
Current price trends: Third quarter,
2013, highlights
Import prices
During the third quarter of 2013, the price index for overall
imports advanced 0.4 percent, following a 1.7-percent
decline in the second quarter. The increase in import
prices was driven by a 3.8-percent rise in the index for
fuel imports. Falling prices for nonfuel imports during the
quarter largely offset the increase in fuel prices.
The 32.9-percent drop in the price index for natural gas
was the largest quarterly decrease since a 34.7-percent
decline during the first quarter of 2006. July began
the third quarter with a 22.1-percent drop, the largest
monthly decline since a 23.0-percent decrease in October
2006. In July, the Energy Information Administration
reported a record high of 74.52 billion cubic feet of
natural gas output in the lower 48 states, the highest
level of output since that agency began measuring
output in 2005.8 With mild temperatures resulting in
lowered demand, the price of natural gas continued its
Fuel imports. The price index for fuels and lubricants
increased 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2013, after falling
4.8 percent in the second quarter of the year. The advance
for the quarter ended in September was brought about by
increases of 1.5 percent in July, 1.6 percent in August, and 0.6
percent in September. A rise of 5.2 percent in petroleum prices
from June to September drove the quarterly advance and
helped to offset a 32.9-percent decline in natural gas prices.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 4
www.bls.gov
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
G L O B A L
E C O N O M Y
Chart 4
Major contributors to the 0.5-percent decrease in import prices excluding fuel, third quarter, 2013
Food, feeds, and beverages
Industrial supplies and materials, excluding fuel
0.09
-0.34
Capital goods
-0.03
Automotive vehicles
-0.08
Consumer goods, excluding automotives
-0.40
-0.10
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
Contribution to percent change
Note:
Because
of rounding,
do not sum to total.
Source:
U.S. Bureau
of Laborfigures
Statistics.
Source:
U.S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
Note: Because of rounding, figures do not sum to total.
downward trend, falling 7.5 percent in August and 6.9
percent in September.
0.5 percent, and the price index for consumer goods fell 0.3
percent, between June and September. Prices for capital
goods decreased 0.1 percent over the same period.
Nonfuel imports. Import prices excluding fuel decreased
0.5 percent over the third quarter of 2013, because of
declines of 0.4 percent in July and 0.2 percent in August.
As shown in chart 4, lower prices for nonfuel industrial
supplies and materials had the largest contribution to
the overall decline in nonfuel prices. Falling prices for
consumer goods, automotive vehicles, and capital goods
also factored into the decrease in the price index for
nonfuel imports.
In contrast, the price index for foods, feeds, and beverages
rose 1.5 percent for the quarter ended in September.
Primarily, prices for vegetables drove the index up, with
a 1.8-percent increase for the third quarter, following a
5.4-percent decline in the second quarter of the year.
Export prices
For the third quarter of 2013, the price index for overall
exports declined 0.3 percent, following a decrease of
1.2 percent in the second quarter. Prices for agricultural
commodities dropped 3.9 percent between June and
September, while prices for nonagricultural commodities
rose 0.2 percent.
Prices for nonfuel industrial supplies and materials fell
2.0 percent in the third quarter of 2013, largely because
of falling gold prices. Despite a 4.6-percent increase in
September, prices for gold decreased 5.3 percent in July and
3.6 percent in August, leaving the index down 4.4 percent
for the 3-month period. After sharp drops in the price of
gold since the beginning of the year, the global gold supply
fell as recyclers refrained from selling the metal.9
Agricultural exports. The price index for agricultural
exports declined 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2013,
almost entirely because of a decrease of 4.2 percent in
August. The same index also fell 0.3 percent in July but
increased 0.7 percent in September. The large decline
Each of the finished-goods categories decreased as well in
the third quarter. Prices for automotive vehicles declined
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 5
www.bls.gov
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
G L O B A L
E C O N O M Y
Chart 5
Major contributors to the 0.2-percent increase in export prices excluding agriculture, third quarter, 2013
0.16
Nonagricultural industrial supplies and materials
Automotive vehicles
-0.06
Automotive vehicles
0.00
Consumer goods, excluding automotives
-0.10
0.04
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Contribution to percent change
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Note:
of rounding,
rounding, figures
figuresdo
donot
notsum
sumtotototal.
total.
Note:Because
Because of
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
in August was brought about by falling prices for
soybeans and corn, which declined 15.9 percent and
14.4 percent, respectively. Improved weather conditions
prevailed throughout much of the Midwestern United
States. Seasonally mild temperatures and abundant rain,
especially in August, raised expectations that U.S. crops
would benefit from the good growing conditions and
produce strong yields.10 After a drought the previous
year resulted in a severe reduction in production, many
farmers responded by increasing the amount of acreage,
they planted in corn.11 The improved weather conditions
and increased acreage resulted in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimating that, in 2013, farmers will harvest a
record 13.76 billion bushels of corn, a 27.7-percent increase
over the previous year’s harvest.12 The soybean harvest was
forecast to rise 13.4 percent, to 3.4 billion bushels.
counterbalanced the September advance. As seen in chart
5, the price index for nonagricultural industrial supplies
and materials was the primary contributor to the overall
movement of nonagricultural exports.
Nonagricultural industrial supplies and materials increased
0.5 percent for the quarter as the result of advances of 0.3
percent in August and 0.8 percent in September, which were
partially mitigated by a 0.6-percent decrease in July. The
August and September increases were brought about by
rising prices for fuel oil in both months and higher prices for
nonmonetary gold and other precious metals in September.
The July decrease was primarily the result of falling prices
for nonmonetary gold and other precious metals. Prices
for the major finished-goods categories were mixed in the
third quarter of 2013. Consumer goods prices declined 0.5
percent, while capital goods prices ticked up 0.1 percent and
prices for automotive vehicles recorded no change. 
Nonagricultural exports. In the third quarter of 2013,
the price index for nonagricultural exports rose 0.2
percent, after declining 1.3 percent the previous quarter.
The advance was spurred by a 0.3-percent increase
in September, while a 0.2-percent decrease in July
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 This BEYOND THE NUMBERS article was prepared by
William Alterman, Edwin Bennion, and Sharon Royales,
economists in the International Prices Program, Office
6
www.bls.gov
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
G L O B A L
of Prices and Living Conditions, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Email: [email protected], telephone: (202)
691-7154; email: [email protected], telephone:
(202) 691-7166; or email: [email protected],
telephone: (202) 691-7142.
E C O N O M Y
the Numbers: Global Economy, vol. 2, no. 24 (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2013),
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/fortyyears-of-the-BLS-Export-and-Import-PriceIndexes:-trends-and-competition.htm.
Information in this article will be made available upon
request to individuals with sensory impairments. Voice
phone: (202) 691-5200. Federal Relay Service: 1-800-8778339. This article is in the public domain and may be
reproduced without permission.
Upcoming articles
yy The Consumer Price Index and the ‘median CPI’
yy Persistence of a high unemployment rate in New
York City during the recovery
yy JOLTS labor turnover data and international labor
turnover
Suggested citation
William Alterman, Edwin Bennion, and Sharon
Royales, “Forty Years of the BLS Export and Import
Price Indexes: trends and competition,” Beyond
Visit our online archives to access past publications at
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/home.htm.
Notes
1.
Unit value indexes, compiled from detailed import and export merchandise trade data derived from administrative customs
documents, are not price indexes, because their changes may be due to both price and (compositional) quantity.
2.
Note that these indexes cover only the import and export of goods. Trade in the service sector is excluded.
3.
See Databases, tables & calculators by subject (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), http://www.bls.gov/data.
4.
“A market basket of major currencies is a selected group of currencies whose weighted average measures the value of an
obligation and is a benchmark for regional currency movements.” See Investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/
terms/c/currencybasket.asp.
5.
Economic report of the President, transmitted to the Congress March 2013, together with the annual report of the Council of
Economic Advisers (Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2013).
6.
BenoÎt Faucon and Summer Said, “Saudi, U.S., Iraq step in to plug Libya oil gap,” The Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2013,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323864604579067001901766512.
7.
U.S. Imports by Country of Origin (U.S. Energy Information Administration, September 2013), http://www.eia.gov/dnav/
pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm.
8.
David Bird, “U.S. July lower 48 natural gas output at record high 74.52 Bcf/day,” The Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2013,
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130930-707601.html.
9.
Laura Clarke, “Gold market supply contracts In reaction to lower prices,” The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2013, http://blogs.wsj.com/
moneybeat/2013/08/15/gold-market-supply-contracts-in-reaction-to-lower-prices/?KEYWORDS=+gold+prices.
10. Jeff Wilson and Whitney McFerron, “Corn extends drop to 33-month low on U.S. crop; soybeans decline,” Bloomberg, July 29, 2013,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/corn-declines-to-33-month-low-on-record-u-s-crop-soybeans-drop.html.
11. Jon Hurdle, “Reality check: U.S. corn prices drop as supply surges,” MNI News, August 29, 2013, https://mninews.marketnews.com/
index.php/reality-check-us-corn-prices-drop-supply-surges?q=content/reality-check-us-corn-prices-drop-supply-surges.
12. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 12, 2013),
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/waob/wasde//2010s/2013/wasde-09-12-2013.pdf.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS  | DECEMBER 2013 7
www.bls.gov